Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this a non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world read (pure computation), so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description adds only that the result spans three quantities (pasta, water, salt); with an output schema present, it contributes little behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core computation and reserve the second only for cross-referencing a related tool. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a deterministic calculator with a full schema and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what is computed and where related tools live. The only missing piece is explicit guidance on when this tool is preferred over similar portion/recipe calculators.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% with two enums (appetite, pasta_type), so the schema already documents all three inputs. The phrase 'for a given number of people' loosely maps to num_people but adds no format, range, or enum semantics beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('calculate') and the exact outputs produced — dry pasta, water and salt for a given number of people — which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from food-adjacent siblings such as calculate_pet_food_portion or calculate_recipe_scale, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The pointer to 'list_bundles for related cuisine calculators' is a routing hint about a broader bundle rather than a when-to-use/when-not statement for this tool itself. There is no explanation of when to prefer this over other portion or recipe-scaling calculators, leaving usage largely implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.